Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driving:

A new multidimensional measure夽
Orit Taubman - Ben-Ari ∗
The Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Four studies were conducted in order to develop and validate a multidimensional instrument to assess
Received 29 December 2008 attitudes toward accompanied driving among young drivers. Study 1 (n = 841) focused on developing
Received in revised form the Attitudes Toward Accompanied Driving Scale (ATADS), a self-report scale based on five previously
14 September 2009
conceptualized domains of attitudes. Factor analysis revealed the five hypothesized factors: Tension,
Accepted 7 December 2009
Relatedness, Disapproval, Avoidance, and Anxiety. In addition, significant associations were found
between these factors and gender, age, and the assessment of reckless driving as risky. Study 2 (n = 651)
Keywords:
adopted a developmental approach, comparing the attitudes of participants in various stages of licen-
Attitudes toward accompanied driving
Reckless driving
sure. Disapproval and Tension were found to be higher, and Relatedness lower, among participants who
Young drivers had not yet begun driving instruction than among those who were taking driving lessons or had already
obtained a license. Study 3 (n = 160) revealed associations between the five ATADS factors and perceived
driving costs and benefits. In Study 4 (n = 193), associations were found between these factors and driver’s
self-image, with a combination of ATADS factors, self-image, and gender contributing to the explained
variance of two outcome variables: driving self-efficacy, and reported frequency of reckless driving. The
discussion focuses on the validity and utility of the new measure of young drivers’ attitudes toward
accompanied driving, stressing its practical implications for road safety.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in particular in the first 6 months, have led to the introduction of

Newly licensed teens are at high risk for involvement in traf-
fic accidents. Statistics show that the crash rates for young drivers
(16–19 years old) all over the world, including in Israel, exceed
those of any other age group, and are particularly high at night, and
when there are other teenage passengers in the car (e.g., Lotan and
Toledo, 2007; Mayhew et al., 2003; Williams, 2003). The first year
of licensure is the most dangerous period, with the initial months of
independent driving recording highly elevated crash rates, which
then decline rapidly after about six months, and more slowly during
the following years (Simons-Morton, 2007). Several authors relate
these statistics to the lower driving competence of young novice
drivers, who are actually still learning, and whose exposure to dif-
ferent road conditions is relatively low (e.g., Mayhew et al., 2003;
Simons-Morton, 2007).
Data of this sort, which highlights the importance of protec-
tive programs and policies during the early years of driving, and
夽 Study 2 was supported by the Or Yarok Association and by the Israeli National
Authority for Road Safety.
∗ Tel.: +972 777533376; fax: +972 3 7384042.
E-mail address: taubman@mail.biu.ac.il.
Graduated Driving Licensure (GDL) programs that extend super-
vised driving for several months and impose a set of restrictions
on novice drivers. In Israel, teens can begin taking driving lessons
at the age of 16.5. Lessons are given only by professional instruc-
tors on specially equipped vehicles, and learners are permitted to
drive only during their lessons. A driving license is issued upon
passing theory and on-road driving tests, and the latter cannot
be taken unless the student has had a minimum of 28 on-road
driving lessons and has reached the age of 17 or older. Until the
year 2000, there were no restrictions on novice drivers once they
received their licenses. Since 2000, all new drivers, regardless of
their age, must be accompanied by an experienced driver for the
first 3 months (2 months until November 2004), with an “expe-
rienced driver” defined as someone over the age of 24 who has
held a valid driving license for at least 5 years. In addition, start-
ing in November 2004, for a period of 2 years after licensure, a
new driver cannot carry more than two passengers (excluding the
driver) unless an experienced driver is present in the car. There
are no restrictions on nighttime driving. Nor is there any mini-
mum requirement regarding the number of driving hours during
the accompanied driving phase (ADP), which is defined solely by
the time elapsed after obtaining a license. Thus, young drivers may
not drive at all during the ADP and still be fully licensed, and allowed

0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.003
1010 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017
to drive with no restrictions, after the end of the 3 month period
(Lotan and Toledo, 2007).
Most frequently, parents undertake the role of the accompany-
ing driver. Although the parents of young drivers have been found
to play a significant role in their teen’s safety (Simons-Morton et
al., 2003), with parental involvement in their driving impacting
positively on safety (Simons-Morton and Quimet, 2006), parent-
supervised driving alone appears to have a limited influence on
crash rates. Simons-Morton (2007) claims that when supervising
their novice teenage drivers, parents can be expected to place a high
priority on safety, guiding them through certain driving situations,
anticipating and warning of hazards, keeping the internal vehicle
environment free from distraction (Simons-Morton and Quimet,
2006), etc. It is not surprising, then, that parent-supervised prac-
tice is very safe (Mayhew et al., 2003), and certainly much safer
than early independent driving when teens first deal on their own
with complex driving situations, often in the presence of in-vehicle
distractions such as teenage passengers and the use of electronic
devices.
One important question that has not been addressed by previ-
ous research is how accompanied driving is perceived by young
drivers.1 While most studies relate to the effectiveness of parent-
supervised practice on the one hand, and to parental management
of teen driving on the other, less attention has been paid to how
young novice drivers perceive and relate to driving with an accom-
panying driver, and how these perceptions contribute to different
driving variables, such as the subsequent commission of traffic vio-
lations and involvement in traffic accidents. The current series of
studies therefore aimed to describe and map the views of young
drivers regarding the obligation to drive with an experienced driver
in the first months after licensure, and to investigate potential asso-
ciations between these attitudes and sociodemographic, driving
history, and reckless driving indices.
When relating to youngsters’ attitudes toward accompanied
driving, one must first consider the attitudes, emotions, and moti-
vations which characterize teenagers in general, and young novice
drivers in particular. Studies conducted among this group in Israel
(Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2008) have found that driving is perceived to
entail both costs and benefits, with the former category including
distress, damage to self-esteem, annoyance, and life endanger-
ment, and the latter relating to impression management, pleasure,
thrill, and sense of control. In addition, the studies reveal four
self-perceptions as a driver: impulsive, confident, cautious, and
courteous. It was found that the more young drivers perceived
themselves to be impulsive or confident, the more benefits they
attributed to driving, the more they perceived themselves to be
impulsive, the more costs they identified with driving, and the more
confident, courteous, or cautious they felt as a driver, the fewer
costs they perceived.
The perception of driving as an opportunity for thrill, and of
oneself as an impulsive driver, appears to encourage reckless driv-
ing habits, whereas a self-perception as a courteous driver inhibits
these behaviors. Moreover, the perceived benefit of thrill and per-
ceived cost of distress, as well as a self-image as a confident driver,
were found to contribute to higher involvement in traffic accidents,
whereas the perceived cost of damage to self-image contributed to
lower involvement in such incidents. In addition, the combination
of the benefit of thrill, the cost of annoyance, and self-image as
a confident and impulsive driver was shown to contribute to the
commission of traffic violations.
1
In order to differentiate it from supervised driving, which occurs both before and
after licensure, legally required driving with a parent or other experienced driver
following licensure is referred to throughout this paper as accompanied driving.
Findings of this sort highlight the complex nature of the per-
ception of driving, especially among teenage drivers, which can be
expected to impact the issue of accompanied driving. A qualita-
tive study of young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driving
found that they generally believe their driving could benefit from
experience, and thus tend to perceive in accompanied driving a
potential for positive outcomes (e.g., greater competence and con-
fidence). However, they appear to differ in the way they actually
experience the accompanying period, and thus in the degree to
which they relate to it positively. When adolescents, who are striv-
ing for autonomy and independence, are forced to drive with an
experienced adult who is often one of their parents, the situation
is likely to incur several stress factors, leading to elevated distress.
The young driver may feel that his or her freedom is threatened,
sense overt or covert criticism or a condescending attitude on the
part of the accompanying driver, and may eventually even prefer
to avoid driving than to remain in this unpleasant and unwanted
situation. The parents, who play a crucial part in the experience,
may also feel ambiguous toward their role. On one hand, they seek
to control the driving style of their children, either by reflecting
their fears and criticism or by empowering the youngsters, or even
by both approaches. On the other hand, they literally lose control
over the vehicle, and might jeopardize the whole purpose of the
process if the interaction with their children is not constructive or
is negative. In other words, the period of accompanied driving radi-
calizes and intensifies issues of control and independence from the
point of view of both the parent and the young driver (Taubman -
Ben-Ari, 2005).
Five domains of young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied
driving have been identified: (1) Tension, i.e., the sense of being
stressed, angry, irritated, and in constant conflict and disagreement
with the accompanying driver; (2) Relatedness, i.e., a feeling of
companionship and interpersonal closeness and relatedness with
the accompanying driver; (3) Avoidance, i.e., the tendency to pre-
fer not to comply and cooperate with the process of accompanied
driving, devoting as little time as possible to it and finding excuses
in order to avoid it; (4) Disapproval, i.e., a sense of being criticized
and expressing criticism and disapproval toward the accompanying
driver; and (5) Anxiety, i.e., the tendency to be afraid that something
bad might happen as a result of driving with the accompanying
driver because of the distraction, distress, or anxiety aroused by
the accompanying driver’s presence (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2005).
The present paper reports on a series of four studies designed
to examine this conceptualization of the domains of young drivers’
attitudes toward accompanied driving. Specifically, we sought to
develop a self-report scale for assessing the domains, to examine
whether the factor structure of the scale would validate the five
hypothesized domains, and to explore the associations between
these domains, driving behaviors, and sociodemographic and driv-
ing history factors.
2. Study 1
The first study aimed at constructing a self-report instrument
to assess young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driving and
their relevance for driving history in general, and reckless driving
in particular. Drawing on existing literature, and especially on the
preliminary qualitative study (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2005), we devel-
oped a measure to assess the five previously identified domains of
attitudes. Original items were devised based on a number of in-
depth interviews and focus-groups with the relevant population.
We then examined the associations between these domains and
sociodemographic factors (gender, age), the identity of the princi-
pal accompanying driver (father, mother, sibling, other), and the
perception of reckless driving as risky.
 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
Eight hundred and forty-one young drivers from diverse geo-
graphical areas in Israel who had had a driving license for 1–36
months (M = 8.20 months, SD = 5.15) volunteered to participate in
the study. They were recruited via a convenience sampling: the
questionnaires were distributed to an initial sample of univer-
sity and college students from all over Israel, who asked friends,
acquaintances, and family members to complete them. The final
sample consisted of 453 women and 388 men, ranging in age from
17 to 22 (M = 18.52, SD = 1.1). Fifty-eight percent were accompanied
mostly by their father, 28% by their mother, 7% by a sibling, and the
rest by other individuals (e.g., a neighbor, another family member).
2.1.2. Procedure and instruments
Participants were asked to complete a packet of questionnaires.
The package included scales tapping attitudes toward accompanied
driving, appraisal of reckless driving as risky, and background data:
Attitudes toward Accompanied Driving Scale (ATADS). This scale
was especially constructed for the study in order to tap the five
hypothesized domains of young drivers’ attitudes toward accompa-
nied driving. An initial scale containing 30 items was administered
to pilot samples, and the data subjected to item and exploratory
factor analysis. As a result of these analyses, 23 items displaying
an adequate normal distribution and good psychometric features
were retained in the final version of the ATADS. Participants were
asked to read each of the items and to rate the extent to which it fit
their feelings, thoughts, and behavior during the accompanied driv-
ing period on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very
much). Before completing the ATADS, participants were asked to
indicate the identity of their principal accompanying driver.
Appraisal of Reckless Driving as Risky Scale (based on Taubman -
Ben-Ari et al., 2004). This 8-item self-report inventory examines the
perception of reckless driving as risky by presenting participants
with typical driving behaviors which are legal offenses and might
endanger the life or well-being of the driver, passengers, pedestri-
ans, and/or passengers of other cars (e.g., running a red light, not
stopping at a stop sign, making a high speed turn). Participants are
asked to indicate the extent to which they view each behavior as
risky on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much). As
the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for the scale was reasonably high
(.85), the scores on the 8 items were averaged to produce a total
score, with higher scores reflecting a higher perception of reckless
driving as risky.
Sociodemographic data and driving history. These were tapped by
means of a questionnaire asking the participants to report their age,
gender, and the number of months they had held a driving license.
2.2. Results and discussion
2.2.1. ATADS factors
To determine whether the ATADS items fell into distinguish-
able domains, a factor analysis (Principle Component Analysis) with
Varimax rotation was conducted on the 23 items. The factor anal-
ysis revealed 5 factors (eigenvalue > 1), which explained 62% of the
variance. Table 1 presents the loadings of the items in each of the
factors.
As Table 1 shows, Factor 1, which explained 39% of the variance
(Cronbach’s Alpha = .91), consisted of 10 items loading high (greater
than .40) on the factor. All these items relate to the tendency to
perceive the experience of being accompanied as distressing and
conflictual, and characterized by stress, tension and anger. Factor 1
was therefore labeled “Tension.” Factor 2 explained 8% of the vari-
ance (Cronbach’s Alpha = .65) and consisted of 2 items indicating
a tendency to perceive accompanied driving as an opportunity to
1011
Table 1
Factor model coefficients of the ATADS.
Factors and items Loading
Factor 1: Tension
(4) For us, accompanied driving is a battle. .75
(3) There is a high level of agreement and cooperation between me .70
and my accompanying driver. [–]
(1) There were a lot of conflicts during our accompanied driving. .69
(8) Overall, I usually felt good during accompanied driving. [–] .66
(5) My accompanying driver and I had fun together in the .61
accompanied driving period. [–]
(10) I was usually a nervous wreck when I got out of the car after .48
accompanied driving.
(20) I felt calm and at ease during accompanied driving. [–] .42
(13) I felt uncomfortable during, before, or after accompanied .40
driving.
(16) I sometimes stopped, or almost stopped, the accompanied .40
driving session because I was angry about something that
happened during it.
(17) Accompanied driving generated a lot of tension. .40
Factor 2: Relatedness
(14) Accompanied driving gave me and my accompanying driver .89
an opportunity to bond in a way we hadn’t done in a long time.
(9) Accompanied driving generated a sense of closeness between .73
me and my accompanying driver.
Factor 3: Avoidance
(12) On the whole, I wanted to spend as little time as possible .73
behind the wheel during the accompanied driving period.
(7) I tried to get in as many driving hours as possible during the .69
accompanied driving period. [–]
(19) Overall, I tended to avoid driving during the accompanied .66
driving period.
Factor 4: Disapproval
(23) During accompanied driving, I thought I had to take the lead, .69
and sometimes even impose my will on my accompanying
driver, for the process to succeed.
(15) Accompanied driving widened the gaps between me and my .56
accompanying driver.
(11) I often expressed criticism of the way my accompanying .49
driver wanted me to drive or the way he/she was handling
accompanied driving.
(6) My accompanying driver often expressed criticism of the way I .43
was driving or the way I was handling accompanied driving.
Factor 5: Anxiety
(2) I was afraid that I might make mistakes on the road because of .88
the stress I felt during accompanied driving.
(18) Most of the time I preferred to keep quiet during accompanied .62
driving.
(22) I was afraid that being with an accompanying driver would .53
cause me to be involved in a traffic accident.
(21) I was apprehensive of the conflicts that might arise during .51
accompanied driving.
Notes: Numbers in brackets represent the order of the items in the scale.
[–] reversed item.
get closer to the accompanying driver and to better relate to him
or her. Factor 2 was therefore labeled “Relatedness.”
Factor 3 explained 7% of the variance (Cronbach’s Alpha = .72)
and consisted of 3 items relating to the preference to avoid accom-
panied driving and to spend as little time as possible in the situation.
Factor 3 was therefore labeled “Avoidance.” Factor 4 explained 4%
of the variance (Cronbach’s Alpha = .70) and consisted of 4 items
indicating the tendency to receive and express criticism and disap-
proval during accompanied driving. Factor 4 was therefore labeled
“Disapproval.” Finally, Factor 5 explained 4% of the variance (Cron-
bach’s Alpha = .75) and consisted of 4 items relating to the tendency
to be anxious while driving with the accompanying driver, or to be
afraid of being involved in an accident or making mistakes because
of his or her presence in the car. Factor 5 was therefore labeled
“Anxiety.”
The factor analysis thus revealed five coherent and meaningful
factors, parallel to the factors conceptualized in the preliminary
study (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2005). Consequently, for purposes of
1012 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017

further analysis, scores were computed for each participant on each
of the five factors by averaging his or her rankings on the items
loading high on each factor.
Pearson correlations between the 5 factors revealed an interest-
ing pattern of associations. First, significant positive associations
were found between Tension on the one hand, and Avoidance,
Disapproval, and Anxiety on the other (rs = .47, p = .000, .68,
p = .000, .70, p = .000, respectively), between Avoidance on the one
hand, and Disapproval and Anxiety on the other (rs = .27, p = .000,
.42, p = .000, respectively), and between Disapproval and Anxiety
(r = .58, p = .000). Secondly, Tension, Avoidance, and Disapproval
were all found to be inversely associated with Relatedness (r = −.30,
p = .000, −.14, p = .000, −.12, p = .000, respectively). Other correla-
tions were not statistically significant.
Thus, the ATADS was shown to present a comprehensive, multi-
dimensional picture of the various orientations young drivers may
adopt toward accompanied driving, indicating both negative and
positive perceptions. While some of the factors appear to be related,
they do not overlap.
2.2.2. ATADS and sociodemographic factors
The next step examined the association between the five ATADS
scores and two basic sociodemographic characteristics, gender and
age. Gender differences were examined by a one-way MANOVA
which revealed a significant gender difference F(5, 835) = 5.08,
p = .000, 2 = .03. One-way ANOVAs for each of the ATADS factors
yielded significant differences for Tension and Relatedness, and a
tendency for a significant difference for Disapproval (p = .06) and
Avoidance (p = .07). The group means for each of the factors appear
in Table 2.
As can be seen from Table 2, men tended to score higher than
women on Tension, Avoidance, and Disapproval, whereas women
scored higher than men on Relatedness. However, all these differ-
ences were relatively small.
Pearson correlations between age and the five ATADS scores
revealed that age was positively, though weakly, associated with
Relatedness and Avoidance, r(841) = .13, p = .000, .12, p = .000. In
other words, the older the participant, the higher his or her ten-
dency either to perceive accompanied driving as enabling a sense of
closeness to the accompanying driver, or to choose to avoid driving
with the accompanying driver.
Next, one-way MANOVAs were conducted to determine
whether differences in attitudes were a function of the identity of
the principal accompanying driver. No significant differences were
found, F(10, 1552) = 1.55, p = .12, 2 = .01, indicating that the per-
ception of accompanied driving is not dependent on the person
accompanying the young driver.
Finally, Pearson correlations were conducted between the five
ATADS scores and the perception of reckless driving as risky.2 Low
inverse associations were found between this perception and the
factors of Tension and Disapproval, r(841) = −.12, p = .000, −.18,
p = .000, respectively, so that the higher the young driver’s scores
on tension or disapproval, the lower his or her perception of traffic
violations as risky.
Study 1 thus provided initial indications of the validity of the
ATADS’s five-factor construct. However, further validation was still
needed.
3. Study 2
Study 2 sought to replicate the findings regarding the five-factor
structure of the ATADS. In addition, it wished to examine whether
differences in the level of the scores would emerge when attitudes
were measured in various licensure stages, i.e., before the beginning
of driving instruction, during the period of driving lessons, and after
obtaining a driving license.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
A representative national sample of 651 young Israeli Jews
participated in the study. The sampling procedure was of a ran-
dom sample of statistical areas within sociodemographic stratums,
and was conducted by a public opinion research institute, which
assured the representativeness of each study group. The sample
consisted of 326 women and 325 men, ranging in age from 16 to 20
(M = 18, SD = 1.36). Three hundred and seven youngsters (46%) had
a driving license, 98 (15%) were learning to drive, and 246 (38%) nei-
ther had a driving license nor were in the process of obtaining one,
but reported on their intention to do so in the future. Of those with a
driving license, 56% were accompanied mainly by their father, 23%
by their mother, 7% by a sibling, and the rest by other individuals
(e.g., a neighbor, another family member). They had had a license
for 1–30 months (M = 9.7, SD = 5.1).
3.1.2. Procedure and instruments
Participants were asked, in a telephone survey, to complete the
ATADS described in Study 1, as well as to provide certain sociode-
mographic data (gender, age, whether or not they had a driving
license, the identity of their principal accompanying driver). The
survey took about 10 min to complete. The response rate was 55%.

Table 2
3.2. Results and discussion
Means and standard deviations of the ATADS Factors, by gender.

ATADS Men Women F(1, 839) p Mean square 2 A confirmatory factor analysis revealed the same five ATADS
factors (n = 388) (n = 453) error
factors, replicating the factor structure described in Study 1 and
Tension explaining 56% of the variance. The internal consistency (Cron-
M 2.26 2.15 3.70 .03 .15 .005 bach’s Alpha coefficients) for each of the factors was acceptable
SD 0.86 0.81
(Tension .87, Relatedness .65, Avoidance .70, Disapproval .60, and
Relatedness Anxiety .66). We therefore computed five ATADS scores for each of
M 2.54 2.67 3.95 .05 .93 .005
the participants by averaging his or her scores on the items in each
SD 0.97 0.96
factor.
Avoidance One-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine the differences in
M 2.04 1.94 3.27 .07 .35 .011
ATADS scores between the three groups of youngsters. The analysis
SD 0.86 0.87
revealed a significant difference for Relatedness, F(2, 641) = 23.67,
Disapproval
M 2.49 2.39 3.47 .06 .59 .004
SD .78 0.76
2
As involvement in car crashes is a rare occurrence in itself, and even rarer when
Anxiety
examining a short period of time, alternative measures were used in this series
M 2.21 2.25 .39 .53 .81 .000
of studies to assess risky driving: the youngsters’ assessment of various driving
SD 0.89 0.90
behaviors as risky, and their report on the frequency of reckless driving behaviors.
 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017
p = .000, 2 = .07. A Test for Simple Effects indicated that the percep-
tion of accompanied driving as an opportunity for closeness with
the accompanying driver was highest among those who did not
have a license (M = 3.05, SD = 1.14), followed by those who were in
the process of obtaining a license (M = 2.70, SD = 1.08), and lowest
among those who already had a license (M = 2.39, SD = 1.09). A sig-
nificant difference was also found for Disapproval, F(2, 645) = 9.36,
p = .000, 2 = .03. A Test for Simple Effects indicated that the expe-
rience or expectation of disapproval was higher among those who
did not have a driving license (M = 2.95, SD = .81) than among those
who already had one (M = 2.64, SD = .89). Finally, a significant differ-
ence emerged regarding the experience or expectation of anxiety,
F(2, 612) = 6.37, p = .002, 2 = .02. A Test for Simple Effects indicated
that Anxiety was higher among those who did not have a license
(M = 2.29, SD = .96) than among those who were in the process of
obtaining one (M = 1.90, SD = .76), and among those who already
had their license (M = 2.16, SD = .93).
Thus, Study 2 replicated the factorial structure of the ATADS
in a representative national sample of Israeli Jews. The findings
also suggest that expectations regarding the accompanied driving
process exist long before the youngsters actually obtain a driving
license. The differences between the study groups reveal that those
who already had a license perceived accompanied driving less as
an opportunity to be close to their accompanying driver, but at the
same time, their attitudes toward the process were more favorable,
as they displayed lower disapproval and anxiety. In other words,
the actual experience of accompanied driving appears to be less
threatening to youngsters than they expect it to be.
The first two studies established the validity and reliability of
the multi-factorial structure of the ATADS, and revealed that young
drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driving are stable regard-
less of the identity of the accompanying driver and change little
with age. In addition, they indicated that women differ from men
only in regard to Relatedness, and that expectations of disapproval
and anxiety are moderated by the actual experience of accompa-
nied driving, whereas the expectation of relatedness is not fully
realized. The next step was to investigate the associations between
the five ATADS factors and certain basic motivations for driving,
and to examine whether attitudes toward accompanied driving are
differentially associated with risky driving.
4. Study 3
Study 3 was aimed at examining the associations between
the ATADS factors and motivations for driving, namely its per-
ceived costs and benefits (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2008). In addition,
it sought to enhance understanding of the associations between
young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driving and reckless
driving.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
One hundred and sixty young drivers from diverse geographi-
cal areas in Israel who had had a driving license for 1–22 months
(M = 9.45 months, SD = 4.55) volunteered to participate in the study,
through a convenience sampling. The final sample consisted of
100 women and 60 men, ranging in age from 17 to 22 (M = 18.65,
SD = .88). Fifty-seven percent were accompanied mainly by their
father, 23% by their mother, 13% by a sibling, and the rest by other
individuals (e.g., a neighbor, another family member).
4.1.2. Procedure and instruments
Participants were asked to complete a packet of questionnaires.
The package included scales tapping attitudes toward accompanied
1013
driving, driving costs and benefits, appraisal of reckless driving as
risky, and background data:
ATADS (described in Study 1). In the current sample, the inter-
nal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients) of each of the five
ATADS factors was acceptable (Tension .91, Relatedness .60, Avoid-
ance .80, Disapproval .68, and Anxiety .77). Five ATADS scores were
therefore computed for each participant by averaging his or her
scores on the items in each factor.
Driving Costs and Benefits Questionnaire (Taubman - Ben-Ari,
2008), tapping subjective perceptions of the costs and benefits of
driving. The questionnaire consists of two 21-item subscales, one
assessing benefits and the other costs. The driving benefits subscale
includes the four factors: Impression Management (7 items; i.e.,
the tendency to view driving as an opportunity to express ability
and self-worth, and to make efforts to impress others; Cronbach’s
Alpha = .90); Pleasure (5 items; i.e., the tendency to feel enjoyment
and freedom and to be able to relieve tension and grow calm when
driving; Cronbach’s Alpha = .80); Thrill (5 items; i.e., the tendency to
regard driving as a chance for stimulation, sensation, risk seeking,
and daring; Cronbach’s Alpha = .86); and Sense of Control (4 items;
i.e., the tendency to feel competent when driving and to sense that
one has control over the situation and the vehicle itself; Cronbach’s
Alpha = .81). The driving costs scale consists of the four factors: Dis-
tress (7 items; i.e., the tendency to feel stress, anxiety, discomfort,
and loss of control when driving; Cronbach’s Alpha = .89); Damage
to Self-Esteem (7 items; i.e., the tendency to feel that driving harms
one’s self-esteem, brings out the negative aspects of one’s person-
ality, and damages personal relationships; Cronbach’s Alpha = .72);
Annoyance (4 items; i.e., the tendency to feel a sense of burden or
fatigue when driving; Cronbach’s Alpha = .92); and Life Endanger-
ment (3 items; i.e., the tendency to perceive driving as a risk to
one’s own or the lives of others; Cronbach’s Alpha = .84).
Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each item
reflects their feelings and attitudes toward driving, using a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). A score was
assigned to each participant on each of the 8 factors by averaging
his or her ratings on the relevant items.
Appraisal of Reckless Driving as Risky Scale (described in Study 1).
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient in the current sample was high
(.91). Therefore, each participant’s rankings on the 8 items were
averaged to produce a total score, with higher scores reflecting a
higher perception of reckless driving as risky.
Sociodemographic and driving history were tapped by means of a
questionnaire asking the participants to indicate their age, gender,
how long they had had a driving license, who their principal accom-
panying driver was, the average number of hours per week they
had driven during the accompanied driving period, and whether or
not they were personally acquainted with anyone who had been
injured in a traffic accident.
4.2. Results and discussion
In the first stage, the associations between the ATADS scores
and the perception of the costs and benefits of driving were exam-
ined by means of Pearson correlations. The correlations appear in
Table 3.
As Table 3 shows, the analysis yielded several significant
associations with benefits. First, Tension and Avoidance were sig-
nificantly and inversely associated with impression management,
pleasure, and sense of control. Thus, the more tense the young-
ster feels as a result of accompanied driving and the more he or she
tries to avoid it, the lower his/her tendency to perceive driving as an
opportunity to manage impressions, to enjoy the experience, and
to feel in control of it. Secondly, Relatedness was significantly and
positively associated with all four driving benefits, indicating that
the higher the perception of accompanied driving as an opportunity
1014 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017
Table 3
Pearson correlations between the ATADS factors and the costs and benefits of driving.
ATADS factors Benefits of driving
Impression Pleasure Thrill
management
Tension −.18* −.27*** −.08
Relatedness .31*** .17* .18*
Avoidance −.21** −.40*** −.12
Disapproval −.09 −.11 −.01
Anxiety −.13 −.23** −.16*
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
for closeness, the more positive the perception of driving in general.
Thirdly, Anxiety was associated significantly and inversely with
thrill, sense of control, and pleasure. Thus, the more accompanied
driving is perceived as generating fears and anxieties, the lower the
tendency to view driving as thrilling, pleasurable, or allowing for a
sense of control.
Pearson correlations between the ATADS scores and the costs
of driving (see Table 3) revealed that Tension, Avoidance, Disap-
proval, and Anxiety were all significantly and positively associated
with distress, damage to self-image, and burden. That is, the more
tense, avoidant, anxious, or disapproving the young driver’s atti-
tude toward accompanied driving, the higher his/her tendency to
perceive driving as distressing, damaging to self-image, and a bur-
den. Avoidance was also significantly and positively associated with
the perception of driving as a risk to life. In addition, Relatedness
was significantly and inversely associated with distress, damage to
self-image, and burden. In other words, the higher the youngster’s
perception of accompanied driving as an opportunity for closeness
with the accompanying driver, the less he/she perceives driving to
be distressful, a burden, and damaging to self-image.
The second stage examined the associations between the ATADS
scores and the costs and benefits of driving on the one hand, and
the perception of reckless driving as risky on the other. Pearson cor-
relations revealed that none of the ATADS factors was significantly
related to the evaluation of riskiness. However, all the benefits were
inversely related to this assessment (r = −.52, p = .000, −.52, p = .000,
−.62, p = .000, −.45, p = .000, for impression management, pleasure,
thrill, and control, respectively), and the costs of distress, burden,
and life endangerment were positively associated with it (r = .26,
p = .001, .24, p = .003, .17, p = .036, respectively).
The final stage of analysis explored the contribution of the
ATADS factors, the costs and benefits of driving, and the sociode-
mographic variables to the evaluation of reckless driving as risky,
using a three-step hierarchical regression. In Step 1, the sociode-
mographic variables of gender (a dummy variable) and age, and
the driving history variables (number of months of licensure, iden-
tity of the principal accompanying driver, average number of hours
driven per week in the accompanied driving period, familiarity with
someone who was hurt in a car crash) were entered. In Step 2, the
five ATADS factors were introduced, and in Step 3, the four benefits
and the four costs of driving were entered. The ATADS factors were
entered prior to the perception of costs and benefits, as the accom-
panied driving phase is the first stage of actual driving, whereas the
perceptions of driving are liable to change with driving experience.
The results of the regression indicated that the 19 factors signif-
icantly predicted the evaluation of reckless driving as risky, F(20,
107) = 5.06, p = .000, explaining 48.6% of the variance. Step 1 con-
tributed 15.8% to the explained variance, with gender as the only
demographic variable contributing significantly to the evaluation
of riskiness (b = .40, beta = .26, t = 2.98, p = .004): men tended to
assess reckless driving as less dangerous than women. Step 2 added
another 13.8% to the explained variance, with a unique contribu-
Costs of driving
Sense of Distress Damage to Burden Risk to life
control self-image
−.35*** .42*** .45*** .49*** .10
.29*** −.17* −.17* −.27*** .01
−.44*** .52*** .53*** .59*** .25**
−.13 .24** .38*** .30*** .01
−.22** .36*** .25** .41*** .11
tion found for two ATADS factors: Disapproval (b = −.22, beta = −.31,
t = 2.62, p = .01); and Anxiety (b = .20, beta = .28, t = 2.31, p = .023). A
further 19% of the explained variance was contributed by Step 3,
mainly by the benefit factor of thrill (b = −.28, beta = −.35, t = 2.35,
p = .021). In sum, then, higher attitudes of Anxiety, lower Disap-
proval, and a lower perception of driving as providing the benefit
of thrill, contributed to the evaluation of reckless driving as risky.
To conclude, Study 3 found that negative attitudes toward
accompanied driving are associated with a perception of driving as
entailing more costs (distress, damage to self-esteem, burden) and
fewer benefits (impression management, pleasure, sense of control,
thrill). Moreover, evidence was found in support of the notion that
ATADS may be used not only to describe and understand the accom-
panied driving period, but also to predict self-reports of measures
relevant to involvement in car crashes. In addition, the fact that atti-
tudes which may reflect maladaptive performance of accompanied
driving, such as Disapproval, significantly reduced the evaluation
of reckless driving as risky, indicates the importance of interven-
tions aimed at empowering the accompanied driving process by
encouraging its proper execution in order to achieve the desired
outcomes.
Study 3 further highlighted the importance of having a reliable
measure to assess young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied
driving. Such a measure was shown to be an indicator of how young
people perceive driving in general, and reckless driving in particu-
lar. Study 4 was designed to elaborate on these points by employing
additional outcome variables related to reckless driving.
5. Study 4
Two main goals were defined for Study 4. The first was to exam-
ine the relationship between another motivational factor, namely
driver self-image (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2008), and attitudes toward
accompanied driving. Secondly, as one of the aims of accompanied
driving is to improve driving abilities and strengthen the self-
efficacy of young new drivers, Study 4 looked into the associations
between the ATADS factors and the outcome variables of driving
self-efficacy and reported frequency of risky driving.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Participants
One hundred and ninety-three young drivers from diverse geo-
graphical areas in Israel who had had a driving license for 1–36
months (M = 8.8 months, SD = 7) volunteered to participate in the
study. They were sampled in the same mode as described in Stud-
ies 1 and 3. The final sample consisted of 104 women and 89 men,
ranging in age from 17 to 21 (M = 18.7, SD = 1.18). Fifty-seven per-
cent were accompanied mainly by their father, 28% by their mother,
8% by a sibling, and the rest by other individuals (e.g., a neighbor,
another family member).
 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017
5.1.2. Instruments
Participants were asked to complete a packet of questionnaires.
The package included scales tapping attitudes toward accompa-
nied driving, self-image as a driver, driving-related self-efficacy,
reckless driving habits, appraisal of reckless driving as risky, and
background data:
ATADS (described in Study 1). In the current sample, the inter-
nal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients) of each of the five
ATADS factors was acceptable (Tension .92, Relatedness .68, Avoid-
ance .72, Disapproval .65, and Anxiety .80). Scores for each of the
ATADS factors were therefore computed for each of the participants
by averaging his or her responses on the relevant items.
Driver Self-Image Inventory (based on Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2008).
Originally consisting of 15 items, this measure is designed to tap
the subjective aspects of self-image as a driver by presenting the
participants with adjectives and asking them to indicate the extent
to which each adjective aptly describes their perception of them-
selves as a driver. Responses are marked on a 6-point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much). In the current study, four
items relating to anxious driving, a dimension which seemed to be
lacking from the original inventory, were added: stressed, tense,
worried, and fearful. A factor analysis with Varimax rotation was
conducted on the 19 items, and revealed 4 coherent and meaning-
ful factors of self-image as a driver (eigenvalue > 1) which explained
58% of the variance. Factor 1 explained 16.3% of the variance (Cron-
bach’s Alpha = .80), and consisted of 4 items (loading higher than
.40), all of which tap the perception of oneself as a stressed, tense,
worried, or fearful driver. This factor was therefore labeled “Anx-
ious Driver.” Factor 2, explaining 14.7% of the variance (Cronbach’s
Alpha = .72), consisted of 5 items relating to the self-perception as
a polite, calm, considerate, or courteous driver, and was labeled
“Courteous Driver.” Factor 3 explained 13.6% of the variance (Cron-
bach’s Alpha = .68) and consisted of 4 items tapping the tendency
to perceive oneself as a confident, experienced, and decisive driver,
and was labeled “Confident Driver.” Factor 4, explaining 13.5% of
the variance (Cronbach’s Alpha = .71), consisted of 4 items indicat-
ing the self-perception as cautious, responsible, clear-thinking, and
law-abiding, and was labeled “Cautious Driver.” Scores on each
factor were computed for each participant by averaging his/her
responses on the relevant items, with higher scores reflecting a
higher endorsement of each self-image.
Driving Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2008),
containing 17 items tapping the subjective perception of self-
efficacy as a driver in various driving contexts (e.g., when tired,
in a new car, in bad weather, in the dark). Participants were asked
to relate to each of the items and rate the extent to which they
feel they act efficaciously when driving in the situation described,
using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). As
the internal reliability of the questionnaire was high (Cronbach’s
Alpha = .93), each participant’s responses on all items were aver-
aged to arrive at a total score, with higher scores reflecting a higher
perception of self-efficacy.
Reckless Driving Habits Scale (based on Taubman - Ben-Ari et al.,
2004), an inventory examining the self-reported frequency of reck-
less driving. The original scale consisted of 14 items. The current
study employed an abridged version containing the 8 items which
loaded highest on the original scale. Each item presents a typical
driving behavior which is a legal offense and might endanger the
life or well-being of the driver, passengers, pedestrians, and/or pas-
sengers of other cars (e.g., running a red light, not stopping at a stop
sign, making a high speed turn). Participants were asked to indicate
how often they drive in the described manner on a 6-point scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). As the Cronbach’s Alpha coef-
ficient for the scale was reasonably high (.76), each participant’s
responses on all 8 items were averaged to produce a total score,
with higher scores reflecting a higher frequency of reckless driving.
1015
Appraisal of Reckless Driving as Risky Scale (described in Study
1). Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient in the current sample was high
(.90). Each participant’s responses on all 8 items were therefore
averaged to produce a total score, with higher scores reflecting a
higher perception of reckless driving as risky.
Sociodemographic and driving history were tapped by means of a
questionnaire asking the participants to indicate their age, gender,
how long they had had a driving license, and who their principal
accompanying driver was.
5.2. Results and discussion
Pearson correlations between the scores on the ATADS factors
and self-image revealed that Tension, Avoidance, and Disapproval
were all significantly and inversely related to the self-perceptions
of courteous (r(192) = −.36, p = .000, −.30, p = .000, −.23, p = .002,
respectively) and careful (r(192) = −.29, p = .000, −.34, p = .000, −.16,
p = .031, respectively) driver. Anxiety was significantly and posi-
tively related to the self-image of an anxious driver (r(192) = .20,
p = .006), and inversely to the perception of oneself as a courteous
driver (r(192) = −.24, p = .001). That is, the more tense, avoiding, or
disapproving young drivers’ attitude toward accompanied driving,
the lower their self-image as a courteous or careful driver, and the
more anxious they feel about accompanied driving, the more they
perceive themselves to be an anxious driver and the less they regard
themselves as a courteous driver.
In addition, significant positive correlations were found
between the ATADS factors of Avoidance and Disapproval and the
reported frequency of reckless driving (r(193) = .16, p = .026, .15,
p = .04), as well as an inverse correlation between the same two fac-
tors and the evaluation of reckless driving as risky (r(193) = −.21,
p = .003, −.16, p = .024). No significant correlations were found
between attitudes toward accompanied driving and driving self-
efficacy.
Next, a series of t-tests was conducted to examine gender dif-
ferences. The results are presented in Table 4.
As can be seen from Table 4, these analyses revealed significant
differences in regard to the attitude of Avoidance, the self-images
of anxious, confident, and careful driver, driving self-efficacy, and
the frequency of reckless driving. More specifically, men tended
to reflect more avoidant attitudes, to perceive themselves as more
confident drivers, to have a higher evaluation of their self-efficacy,
and to report driving more recklessly. On the other hand, women
perceived themselves as more anxious and careful drivers.
The final stage of analysis explored the contribution of the
ATADS factors, driver self-image, the evaluation of reckless driv-
ing as risky, and the sociodemographic variables to the reported
frequency of reckless driving and the perception of driving self-
efficacy, by conducting a separate five-step hierarchical regression
for each of the two outcome variables. As important gender dif-
ferences had already been found, gender was included in the
regressions in order to examine its interactions with the other vari-
ables while controlling for its variance. In Step 1 of the regressions,
the sociodemographic variables of gender (a dummy variable) and
age were introduced. In Step 2, number of months from licensure
and the evaluation of reckless driving as risky were entered. The five
ATADS factors were introduced in Step 3, and the four driver self-
images in Step 4. In Step 5, the two-way interactive terms (gender
X each of the study variables) were entered. Table 5 presents the
regression coefficients for the prediction of self-reported reckless
driving and driving self-efficacy.
The first regression indicated that the study variables signifi-
cantly predicted the reported frequency of reckless driving, F(15,
189) = 9.04, p = .000, explaining 42% of the variance. A significant
contribution was found for gender and perceived riskiness of reck-
less driving, with men and those evaluating less risk tending
1016 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017

to drive more recklessly. Whereas no ATADS factor contributed Table 5

Hierarchical regression coefficients (beta weights) for the prediction of reckless
directly to this outcome variable, a direct contribution was found
driving and driving self-efficacy.
for two self-images: lower perception of oneself as an anxious and
as a cautious driver. In addition, one interaction was found to sig- Reported frequency Driving
of reckless driving self-efficacy
nificantly predict reckless driving: the interaction between gender
and the attitude of Disapproval. Step 1
To examine the nature of the significant interaction, simple Gender .22** .16*
Age .11 −.16*
slope analyses (Aiken and West, 1991) were conducted, whereby
R2 5.3** 5.6**
the slope of the regression of reported reckless driving on Dis-
Step 2
approval was calculated twice by gender. The results revealed
Number of months since licensure .02*** .22***
that Disapproval was significantly associated with increased reck- Perception of reckless driving as risky −.45*** .06
less driving among men, ˇ = .11, p = .05, but not among women, R2 18.9*** 0.3
ˇ = −.046. Thus, whereas young male drivers who hold highly
Step 3
disapproving attitudes toward accompanied driving report more ATADS factors
reckless driving, no such relation was found among women. Tension .01 −.01
The second regression found the study variables to significantly Relatedness −.07 −.04
predict driving self-efficacy, F(14, 189) = 4.87, p = .000, explaining Avoidance .01 −.04
Disapproval .08 .14
28.1% of the variance (see Table 5). Gender and age were found Anxiety −.04 −.17
to contribute significantly to this outcome variable, with men and R2 1 2.3
younger drivers tending to feel more self-efficacious. Whereas
Step 4
no ATADS factor contributed uniquely to self-efficacy, a unique Driver self-image
predictive contribution was found for two self-images: a lower Anxious −.29*** −.15*
perception of oneself as an anxious driver and a higher percep- Courteous −.09 .13
tion as a confident driver. In addition, the interaction between Confident .12 .33***
Cautious −.20** −.04
R2 15.1*** 18***
Table 4 Step 5
Means and standard deviations of the ATADS factors, driver self-image, driving self- Gender × Disapproval −.18* –
efficacy, and frequency of reckless driving, by gender. Gender × Anxiety – .22*
R2 1.7* 1.9*
Men Women F(1, 192) p Mean square 2

(n = 89) (n = 104) error *

p < .05.
**
p < .01.
ATADS factors ***
p < .001.
Tension
M 2.28 2.06 3.54 .062 .71 .018
SD 0.87 0.82
gender and the attitude of Anxiety was found to significantly pre-
Relatedness
dict driving self-efficacy. Simple slope analyses (Aiken and West,
M 2.50 2.53 .54 .81 .93 .000
SD 0.97 0.96
1991) were conducted to examine the source of this interaction, and
revealed that Anxiety was significantly associated with decreased
Avoidance
self-efficacy among men, ˇ = −.308, p = .01, but not among women,
M 2.20 1.86 7.93 .005 .68 .040
SD 0.93 0.73 ˇ = −.024. Thus, whereas young male drivers who hold highly anx-
ious attitudes toward accompanied driving assess their driving
Disapproval
M 2.50 2.35 1.99 .16 .57 .010
self-efficacy as lower, no such relation was found among women.
SD 0.79 0.72

Anxiety 6. General discussion

M 2.28 2.15 .90 .34 .84 .005
SD 0.89 0.94 The purpose of this research was to highlight the need for an
integrative multidimensional measure of young drivers’ attitudes
Driver self-image
Anxious
toward accompanied driving and to examine the validity and utility
M 2.50 2.84 8.43 .004 .67 .042 of such a measure. Taken together, the four studies provide strong
SD 0.74 0.88 evidence both of the internal validity of the ATADS, and of the value
Courteous of distinguishing among different domains of attitudes for explain-
M 3.73 3.78 .31 .58 .39 .002 ing variations in maladaptive driving cognitions and behaviors. The
SD 0.63 0.62 correlations between the five ATADS factors and the assessed moti-
Self-confident vational aspects further attest to the importance of distinguishing
M 3.69 3.45 6.40 .012 .42 .033 among the various attitudes, as the factors of Tension, Disapproval,
SD 0.71 0.60 Criticism, and Anxiety were most closely associated with a cluster
Cautious of reckless driving variables.
M 3.77 4.07 14.64 .000 .30 .072 Several findings in particular support the usefulness of the
SD 0.62 0.48 ATADS. First, Tension and Disapproval were higher among men,
whereas Relatedness was higher among women, though differ-
Driving self-efficacy
ences were not profound. As the former two factors were also found
M 4.86 4.55 5.72 .018 .029
SD .99 .92 to be related to the perception of reckless driving behavior as less
dangerous, it can be inferred that the ATADS factors are important
Frequency of reckless driving predictors of reckless driving cognitions. Secondly, the more neg-
M 2.09 1.83 9.85 .002 .33 .049 ative and maladaptive ATADS factors were associated with higher
SD 0.62 0.53
perceptions of driving as entailing costs such as distress, burden,
 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1009–1017
and damage to self-esteem, as well as lower perceptions of bene-
fits such as impression management and control. In addition, the
more positive perception of accompanied driving, Relatedness, was
associated with the perception of the benefits of driving. Although
both costs and benefits were found in past studies to be related
to reckless driving among more experienced drivers (Taubman -
Ben-Ari, 2008), for young drivers a negative experience of accom-
panied driving appears to be related to a generalized lack of regard
for driving. Similarly, higher attitudes of Tension, Disapproval and
Avoidance were related to lower perceptions of oneself as a careful
and courteous driver. In other words, the more negatively accompa-
nied driving is perceived, the less careful and courteous the young
drivers’ assessment of themselves. As self-image as a driver was
found to be related to reckless driving measures both in the current
studies and in an earlier one (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2008), the present
findings suggest that when more positive, rather than negative,
emotions are generated by accompanied driving, young drivers
might display safer driving behaviors. This possibility is reinforced
by the fact that lower Disapproval and Tension were also found to
be related to a higher perception of reckless driving as risky, and
lower Disapproval, along with higher Anxiety, predicted a higher
perception of reckless driving as risky. The picture which seems
to emerge here is that accompanied driving which is characterized
by the negative attitudes of Tension, Disapproval, and Avoidance
may be a precursor of later reckless driving. Finally, among men,
an anxious attitude toward accompanied driving was associated
with a lower driving-related self-efficacy. This finding is important
as self-efficacy is a basic goal of accompanied driving.
This set of findings is in line with the results of previous studies
showing that parent-teen discordance is associated with a variety
of high risk activities, including violence (Howard et al., 1999) and
substance abuse (Langhinrichsen et al., 1990). In addition, Beck et
al. (2005) found that greater agreement regarding restricted driving
conditions was significantly associated with decreased teen driv-
ing risk among newly licensed young drivers. Though their study
dealt with parental restrictions rather than accompanied driving, it
also indicates that lower agreement and higher negativity between
parents and young drivers may contribute to risky driving.
Some limitations of the current series of studies should be
noted. First, they relied on self-reports of attitudes, motivations,
and driving behaviors. Future studies should attempt to replicate
the findings using behavioral measures as well, perhaps includ-
ing observations of accompanied driving, or the reports of other
people, such as the accompanying drivers themselves. Secondly, in
Studies 1, 3, and 4, convenience sampling was used. Although the
finding that the ATADs characteristics and the distribution of the
principle accompanying driver in all studies was similar, includ-
ing in the representative sample of Study 2, validates the strength
of these studies’ findings, future investigations should make an
effort to examine this novel questionnaire in representative sam-
ples. Thirdly, the participants in all studies had not had a driving
license for very long, so that we were unable to examine involve-
ment in traffic accidents. Further investigations conducted just
after the accompanied driving phase and again some years later
would allow for the inclusion of this important outcome variable.
Finally, the studies employed numerous statistical analyses, which
might lead to the emergence of Type 1 errors, thus indicating some
associations which may not exist in reality. However, the decision
to have a series of studies rather than relay on a single study, and the
1017
coherence of the findings presented, supports the validity of cur-
rent results. Another interesting avenue for future studies would
be to examine the associations between the ATADS factors and rel-
evant individual-difference factors (e.g., self-esteem and sensation
seeking), family factors (e.g., parenting styles), and parents’ views
of accompanied driving.
Despite the limitations, the correlations found here between the
five ATADS factors and the other variables attest to the importance
of distinguishing among the various attitudes to accompanied driv-
ing, as they might lead to different styles of driving in the future. In
other words, the findings provide evidence in support of the use of
the ATADS not only to describe and understand the accompanied
driving phase, but also to predict aspects related to young drivers’
involvement in car crashes.
Beyond the theoretical importance of the findings, the suggested
relationship between early attitudes toward accompanied driv-
ing and later risky driving cognitions and behavior has obvious
practical implications. If indeed the ATADS factors are important
predictors of reckless driving, identifying them in the initial stage of
driving will offer the opportunity for modification. In addition, the
finding regarding lower levels of Disapproval and Anxiety among
those who have already experienced accompanied driving, as com-
pared to those who have yet to do so, points to the potential
benefit of preparing youngsters for the accompanied driving phase
by courses or other means. In other words, this research indicates
the positive impact on road safety that might be gained by inter-
ventions aimed at empowering the accompanied driving process.
References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interac-
tions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Beck, K.H., Hartos, J.L., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2005. Parent-teen disagreement of
parent-imposed restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure: is
discordance related to risky teen driving? Prevention Science 6, 177–185.
Howard, D.E., Cross, S.I., Xiaoming, L., Huang, W., 1999. Parent–youth concordance
regarding violence exposure: relationship to youth psychosocial functioning.
Journal of Adolescent Health 25, 396–406.
Langhinrichsen, J., Lichtenstein, E., Seeley, J.R., Hops, H., Ary, D.V., Tildesley, E.,
Andrews, J., 1990. Parent-adolescent congruence for adolescent substance use.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence 19, 623–635.
Lotan, T., Toledo, T., 2007. A novel program to enhance safety for young drivers in
Israel. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Road Safety on
Four continents, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mayhew, D.R., Simpson, H.M., Pak, A., 2003. Changes in collision rates among novice
drivers during the first months of driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35,
683–691.
Simons-Morton, B., 2007. Parent involvement in novice teen driving: rationale,
evidence of effects, and potential for enhancing graduated driver licensing effec-
tiveness. Journal of Safety Research 38, 193–202.
Simons-Morton, B.G, Hartos, J.L., Beck, K.H., 2003. Persistence of effects of a brief
intervention on parental restrictions of teen driving privileges. Injury Prevention
9, 142–146.
Simons-Morton, B., Quimet, M.C., 2006. Parent involvement in novice teen driving:
a review of the literature. Injury Prevention 12, 130–137.
Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., 2005. Summary of research results on GDL in Israel – atti-
tudes, perceptions and behavior of young drivers and parents of young drivers.
Report prepared for the Or Yarok Association (in Hebrew).
Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., 2008. Motivational sources of driving and their associa-
tions to reckless driving cognitions and behavior. European Review of Applied
Psychology 58, 51–64.
Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., Iram, A., 2004. A multifactorial framework
for understanding reckless driving – appraisal indicators and perceived envi-
ronmental determinants. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour 7, 333–349.
Williams, A.F., 2003. Teenage drivers: patterns of risk. Journal of Safety Research 34,
5–15.